On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
wrote in message ...
[...]
I'd listen to you except that I am old enough to actually have "worked
in the woods" as they used to term it, and have also worked in truly
primeval areas in other countries where there no signs that man had
ever existed there.
When you use the term "primeval" you simply don't know what you are
talking about. You use the word to describe the Appalachian Trail, for
instance, but the Appalachian Trail is damned close to civilization
when you compare it with an actual primeval area, which, quite
obviously, you know nothing about.
But of course you are not actually talking about a primeval area you
are simply parroting the word in an effect to make your notions sound
logical and important.

I have never used the word “primeval” in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything “primeval”. I am only interest in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
[...]

WEll, I should hope not.

After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
in an earliest or original stage or state".

But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.

And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
posts to tell you where you are.

It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.

But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and
uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all
the amenities , and some trees.
--
cheers,

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!
Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.

That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.

But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by animals". Were
those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"?

I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care
less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a
"hiker" had appeared on the scene.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 05:12:47 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]
My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.

There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.

Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now referred to as
"West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With
an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of
877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for
the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a
population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq.
mile in your home state.

So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to
see.
--
cheers,

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
"John B." wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.

Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a
series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
limited to walkers.

But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to
be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable
manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman."

Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government
owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't
watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any
announcement of your appointment.

Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to
dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately
635,600,000 acres of Federal Property?

What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with
the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the
camps being built even now?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:08:33 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
[...]
Mountain bikers have criminal minds which is why the only way to get at
them is by force of law. A little enforcement with suitable penalties
would soon bring your transgressions to an end.
Ask yourself why do smart police forces everywhere have bicycle teams.

Some few police forces do have bicycle teams, but they do not ride on trails for hikers. They ride on city streets.

You seem not to be able to stay focused on what is being discussed, but rather your mind wonders like a childâ€™s mind. I will cut you when you get off the subject since I am an expert editor.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:57:50 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]
I have never used the word â€śprimevalâ€ť in describing what hikers do in the woods. That was your word, not mine. I have no interest in anything â€śprimevalâ€ť. I am only interested in wilderness and natural landscapes, those minimally modified by man. You are stalking a straw horse.
[...]
WEll, I should hope not.
After all "primeval" is a description of a condition or state of
being. The dictionary has it that "having existed from the beginning;
in an earliest or original stage or state".

No one cares about that.
But "what hikers do in the woods"? The Lord only knows what antics
that get up to out there in the bushes, with no one to watch then.

It is what bikers do in the woods that passes all understanding.
And, "minimally modified by man"? I suppose that you mean man made
trails to walk on, with stairs to climb the hills, and the shelters to
sleep in and the places to build your fire and the cute little sign
posts to tell you where you are.

God Damn! So you can read!
It sounds more like the Freeway than a "wilderness", as you call it.

Nope, it is â€śminimally modified by manâ€ť. God Damn! You canâ€™t read after all!
But Dolie, the word "wilderness" actually means "a wild and
uninhabited area left in its natural condition", not a place with all
the amenities , and some trees.

It doesn't mean that at all. I just means â€śminimally modified by manâ€ť. God Damn! I wish you could read!

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:51:09 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference
with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear
Watson!
Nope, I'm impacted by those walkers who never stray far from their motor
vehicles, so a bicycle allows me to get beyond those people.

That would not have been true 30 or 40 years ago when I think long hikes were much more popular than they are today. Even so, you are transgressing what was originally intended for use only by equestrians and hikers.
But Dolie, you previously talked about "trails made by animals". Were
those "intended for use only by equestrians and hikers"?

The Asshole previous to you was saying that a wildness has no trails, but every patch of land on earth has trails, except maybe Antarctica. Trails for equestrians and hikers are mostly man made, but such trails are there for the purpose of allowing humans access to wilderness. It is why wilderness areas were created in the first place.
I'll bet that they weren't as I suspect that those animals could care
less about any equestrians and I'm sure that they would have run if a
"hiker" had appeared on the scene.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:27:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]
My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.
Why ever not? I spent several years working in Indonesia in arias
where it seemed that no one have ever been before.

There is no place you could go in Indonesia which has not been overrun with people at one time or another. Try to stay real if that is possible.
Sorry Dolie, but what was called "Iran Jaya" and is now referred to as
"West Papua" has been claimed as a part of Indonesia since 1945. With
an area of 420,540 square kilometers and an estimated population of
877,437 and it is the least populous province of Indonesia except for
the newly created province of North Kalimantan. West Papua has a
population density of some 3.1 per square mile. Compared to 66.6/sq.
mile in your home state.

So what! There is no patch of land anywhere in Indonesia which has not been visited by man. How did someone as stupid as you ever get posted to Indonesia? Next you will telling me that that there are areas of Australia which have never seen the footprints of man!
So, once again, the detestable Dolan exhibits his ignorance for all to
see.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:58:15 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
"John B." wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As for intelligent, I suspect that few will accept your repetitive
arguments as intelligent. The "it's all mine and I don't care if the
government did build it everyone, you can't use it if I don't let
you." Over and over and over again.

Jesus Christ, you are worse than stupid. What led off this thread if not a
series of very good arguments for why wilderness and why it should be
limited to walkers.
But Dolly, when your "very good arguments" are analyzed they appear to
be, basically, "Dolan knows everything". And in some indescribable
manner, "Dolan is the appointed spokesman."

What does the above comment have to do with my arguments of trails for hikers only. There was nothing repetitive about the arguments presented in the article enclosed nor is there in my thousands of comments on this newsgroup. God Damn! Do you know anything at all about addressing an issue?
Tell us Dolly, how did you get to be the spokesman for government
owned areas of the U.S.? Was there an election? I mean, while I don't
watch Washington going on's with an eagle eye, I never saw any
announcement of your appointment.

Irrelevant!
Or you some self anointed spokesman. Elected by a majority of one, to
dictate what should and should not be done on the approximately
635,600,000 acres of Federal Property?

Irrelevant!
What is next? The bent cross arm bands and "sieg heil, sieg heil" with
the arm in the air? Do we address you as "Great Leader"? Are the
camps being built even now?

Irrelevant!
And to make matters even more ridiculous, they aren't your toys.

Irrelevant!

I have not so far detected any argument for why bikes should be permitted on hiking trails. Instead of going on and on with irrelevancies, try to make a case for your side. I have more than made the case for my side.